1. According to the Light and Margolis, Fischer and Miller articles women have been getting the short end of the stick in terms of the technology sector, at both the beginning and the end of the century. Do you agree? If so, why have women been adversely marginalized and stereotyped in regards to technology labor when in other societal aspects women have made some relative progress over the last century?
2. Is the tendency to discuss a machine's impact/importance over invisible human labor merely a result of ingrained capitalist and economic measurement? Would this help to explain why labor can become invisible, particularly in terms of technology?
3. Why do you think that women's lower confidence and self-comparison to male counterparts is so high in computer science, according to the article? Did Light pinpoint some defining moment in the history of technology that society has not found its way out of yet?
A question that goes back to last week's discussion. How important is the geography of Orr's study being located in Silicon Valley in his results? Would this same "community of technicians" be plausable anywhere, how about someplace in the Midwest region, besides the few large cities like Chicago or Milwaukee?